Talk:List of governors of dependent territories in the 21st century

Merge from

There are too many "List of colonial governors in 0000" pages, and they are not well maintained, nor simple to maintain. For example, the territorial and colonial governors in 2016 is very nearly the same as governors in 2015. It is very combersome to verifiy, maintain, and navigate the hundereds of pages like this. For earlier times it should merged into lists of state leaders by century. For more recent centuries, they can split by either decade or another method.

Based on WP:CON at Talk:List of state leaders in the 1st century and elsewhere-- I propose these pages (namely 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2002) be merged into List of territorial governors in the 21st century.

For the more recent centuries we could also organising the territorial governors by decade (i.e. List of territorial governors in the 1980s etc.), but I see zero benifit to maintain many similar articles. These articles are certainly very similar. Let's say someone discovered and added a record for a territorial governors that ruled for 20 years-- one would have to "maintain" all the other pages by editing the other 19 "by year" pages, one by one.

Wikipedia policy also calls on us to eliminate Wikipedia:Content forking, which is having more than one page that is very similar. tahc ^chat 17:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking-- for example-- at List of colonial governors in 2003 (since the 2002 one is much tinier than any other of the 21st century governor lists) I see it lists 35 people as still in office to the "present". A couple of them might still be in office, but all the one I have looked and have been replaced, normally replaced more than once. The patteren is that when a new governor comes to office, only the current year list gets up-dated and those for past years (very often) do not. tahc ^chat 17:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no objections, I will finish the merge as having WP:consensus. The by-year pages are in poor shape and the by-year already has all their data and much more. tahc ^chat 03:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tahc: I completely agree: the by-year lists are hard to maintain and not very reader-friendly. I see that some of your merges were undone by User:Bogdan Uleia, so I've restored them. --Slashme (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tahc:@Slashme: I you continue to destroy the work of other contributors I I will make a complaint to the administrator. You are free to do any artcle you want but not to distroy the work of other. Bogdan Uleia (talk)

@Bogdan Uleia: I understand that you are unhappy because Tahc and I have been undoing your contributions. We all want to improve Wikipedia, but we seem to have different ideas of what an ideal arrangement of articles would be. Your suggestion that you will "make a complaint to the administrator" leads me to believe that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy. Please read the policy: we're currently at the stage where we discuss the topic to see whether we can reach consensus among ourselves. If this doesn't work, we can ask for a third opinion or enter into formal dispute resolution. --Slashme (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Bogdan Uleia is will edit warring.

@Slashme:, @Bogdan Uleia: I prefer to discuss things with Bogdan Uleia but he has so-far been very unwilling. We cannot ask for third opinion because there are already three of us. (Short of Bogdan Uleia entering real discussion, and not edit warring any more) Slashme, we can do either or both of two things: (1) report him for edit warring (2) enter a formal dispute resolution. If you (Slashme) want to try formal dispute resolution I will let you request it. tahc ^chat 21:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bogdan Uleia: I've put a warning on your talk page - please don't keep reverting User:Tahc's edits without discussing here. --Slashme (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, as the "creator" of one of the articles under discussion (I just copied a previous year's content to a new year with no changes — and, yes, I know that's exactly the kind of action that has resulted in the present mess), I have no problem with all of these articles being merged into one. FWIW… - dcljr (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of territorial governors in the 21st century

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of territorial governors in the 21st century's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rulers":

• From Kolouei O'Brien: "Tokelau". Rulers.org. Retrieved 16 December 2010.
• From Xavier de Fürst: "July 2006". Rulers.org. Retrieved 2008-07-30.
• From Governor of Bermuda: "Countries Ba-Bo: Bermuda". Rulers.org. Retrieved 2015-09-03.
• From Jean-Pierre Laflaquière: "August 2012". Rulers.org. August 2012. Retrieved 2013-05-28.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No Sir.

Yes-- even for biographies we for do not add honorifics, like "Sir"-- per the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorifics. Furthermore you lack any WP:CON.

Please stop edit warring per WP:BRD Etc. You made a bold move... you were reverted... discuss and stop re-reverting. tahc ^chat 15:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You are going against the consensus here. Check the other similar pages, they do use Sir and Dame. And you failed to notice that I rectified a list of other errors and inadequacies in the article too. [says Zoltan Bukovszky]

(1) Using "Sir" cannot be the past consensus here if it was never discussed before... and never used here before (and other things also). It has never even been used here, much less other things.

(2) You cannot claim "consensus" based on some other page, unless that other is policy like Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorifics.

(3) All the other most similar pages (e.g. List of governors of dependent territories in the 20th century, List of state leaders in the 21st century, List of 21st-century religious leaders) do not use Sir. tahc ^chat 15:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The policy you keep referring to (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorifics) is about something else (i.e. biographies), therefore irrelevant to this discussion as it covers a different topic. So you are simply not justified in trying to bring that to this discussion.

There is an existing consensus for using 'Sir' and 'Dame' with the names of leaders in similar articles (see Governor of Gibraltar, List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence. List of current heads of state and government, List of state leaders in 2011, List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office). The articles you mentioned above ('List of governors of dependent territories in the 20th century' and 'List of state leaders in the 21st century') were all created by yourself, so you are trying to justify your out-of-consensus actions by your own past action. The articles on the very same topic which you did not write, (i.e. List of current dependent territory leaders and List of leaders of dependent territories), include 'Sir' and 'Dame' where applicable, as do the annual lists of state leaders and the deleted lists of colonial leaders (and the few which you have not deleted yet, like the List of colonial governors in 1981). ZBukov (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You do not have WP:CON here. Please stop reverting then we can talk about what makes sense for here, per WP:BRD. I also do not object other edits you have made, so long as you do not mix them with the many additions of "Sir". I may even get time to add your other edits back in, but not if you are still making new edits nor if you are still making old reverts. Until you have haveWP:CON for "Sir" they do not belong here. tahc ^chat 19:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@tahc You apparently failed to read my above message. All the articles dealing with this topic, which were nor written by yourself, include the 'Sirs', therefore there is a consensus, which you are breaking. Therefore you have to justify your actions and you should attempt to create a new consensus to overwrite the existing one, and once you succeeded in it, then would you be free to delete them. And with your latest revert you consciously continued the edit warring which you malevolently accused me of (despite this discussion going on), so I reported you ([[1]]). ZBukov (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is built on individual pages, and is not based on the contents of other pages. I concur with Tahc in his interpretation of the use of honorifics in this case. You need to gain consensus on this page to make your requested modifications. Scr★pIron^IV 19:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you really saying that there is no expectation to handle the same question the same way across articles dealing with the exact same topic in an almost identical format...? (i.e. List of current dependent territory leaders and List of leaders of dependent territories and List of state leaders in 2010) So all it takes is one editor declaring that s/he doesn't agree with some solution? Then I declare that I don't agree with his choice to ommit 'Sir' and 'Dame' from the article. And the difference between the weight of our opinions is that most similar articles include the 'Sir' and 'Dame' prefixes, those people's names are most often used like that in the press, and it's a title that's legally part of their names (not merely a style like 'The Honourable' or 'His Excellency'). ZBukov (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In your first example, I see six errant inclusions of Sir or Dame. In the second, I see four. There are actual titles (Queen, President) specific to the individuals, but few honorifics. I see no consensus on those pages that would justify the addition of dozens of honorifics on this page. Scr★pIron^IV 20:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read again my previous message. 'Sir' and 'Dame' are not honorifics (styles of address) but titles. An honorific would be The Honourable Sir John Smith or The Right Honourable Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam - which nobody wants to include in these articles (the relevant styles of a queen would be Her Majesty and for a president His Excellency). So 'Sir' is not that (see English honorifics#Formal titles).

The List of current dependent territory leaders article included four instances of 'Sir' and one 'Dame' (until you deleted them a few minutes ago), because only five of the people listed received a knighthood, and therefore have the right to prefix their names with 'Sir', and the same goes for the other articles. What you might be misunderstanding here is that 'Sir' is not used as a form of courteous address in general, but is used only for those Commonwealth subjects who received a knighthood (similar to Queen Elizabeth and Pope Francis and Sheikh in from of the names of those who received that title). It just so happens that many (though less and less) UK colonial governors received a knighthood. And the "errant"ness of their inclusion is only your opinion. ZBukov (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If two pages were similar and one of them had honorifics and the other did not, that would not be WP:CON to have them both use honorifics. That would be a possible reason for a new consensus... but not any automatic consensus, for several reasons... see also Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.

(1) First we would have to agree (for the purposes of honorifics) which page is most like this page... and we do not agree. (2) Even then it be unclear why they should both become with honorifics. I could and would say (except maybe for one example) they should both become without honorifics. (3) Sometimes (in other cases) there is a good reasons for both to stay different. The point is, you do not already have consensus just because you found another page that you like and want to claim it is the most like this pages. tahc ^chat 20:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

NOBODY WANTS TO INCLUDE HONOFIRICS IN THIS ARTICLE (e.g. Mr, Her Majesty, The Honourable, etc). The articles Tahc brought up as examples were all written by himself/herself! And any other article I've found (which were not written by Tahc, and which had contributions from many editors) includes 'Sir' and 'Dame'. By the way I haven't seen any discussion of which article is similar to this one, let alone any disagreement about it. What I have mentioned above is that Tahc shouldn't cite his/her own previous writing (the other article which s/he wrote) as example of consensus. ZBukov (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk pages, "honorific" mean things like "Saint" "Doctor" "Sir" "Mr". In contrast, "Her Majesty" and "The Honourable" are called style, styled, or style of address.

Different sub-cultures use (and do not use) different honorifics. Cathlics use "Blessed Virgin Mary" and "Saint Paul", Eastern Christianity uses "Mother of God", other parts of Christianity say the "Apostle Paul" and "Jesus Christ". Brits say "Sir Elton John" and "Sir Paul McCartney" but others do not use the "Sir".

Wikipedia is international an takes a very NPOV. Many honorifics are not NPOV and not international, so Wikipedia has a long-standing policy of avoiding all honorifics with two exceptions that I am aware of... (1) the lead of that person's own biography [within limits] and (2) when it is a necessary disambiguator/identifier (e.g. Saint Patrick).

Wikipedia used to list this policy in a general part of the WP:Manual of Style. It currently (seems to be) only listed under biography section of the Manual of Style. I do not think the policy has changed at all, but I do understand your confussion on that point.

I did do much of the creation of the pages like this one that I cite... just as your added much to the pages that you cite. None of that changes how we find consensus.

None the less, I created these pages from other pages, and those other pages very rarely use honorifics, unless (sometimes) if the pages was made by you or (some other) Brits or another sub-cultures that often uses "Sir". We can also point out that many colonial governors (both today and in years past) are knighted... and yet even on most pages you cite many knighted people are not listed as "sir".

Please also note... even if we did want to use "Sir" it would be more difficult to use it "sir" consitently, and I think it would be better to avoid "sir" for that reason also. tahc ^chat 22:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken on the first point. The Wikipedia Manual of Style refers to the likes of The Honourable, Her Majesty, Mrs and Father collectively as "styles and honorifics", while Sir and Dame are listed as "honorific titles", which - the manual states - "are included in the initial reference" (and the names of the people in question typically appear only once in the article). I guess that settles it from the Wikipedia policy angle. Furthermore you can check Google for yourself to see whether knights' names are more often mentioned with or without the 'Sir' and 'Dame' prefix.

As for the point that "Sir" and "Dame" is used by the Brits and no-one else, it's perfectly natural, because it's a British title. Similarly no British state leader will bear the title of "Sultan", "Sheikh" or "Pope" because those are awarded by other states, and those too are included for the people concerned.

I don't know what pages you based your articles on, but most articles I've seen prefix the names of knights with 'Sir' and 'Dame'. So would you care to share which pages you base your claim upon that these titles are mostly omitted?

Please explain what difficulty you foresee with the consistent use of these titles. Many other Wikipedia articles manage perfectly with them, as it's simply a matter of fact whether someone possesses this title or not. ZBukov (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've noted that you are going around fashioning articles to your taste in this matter. Please refrain from edit warring as there is the above discussion going on, and no consensus has been reached. ZBukov (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is a current consensus in this discussion. Two editors and the Manual of Style concur. Yours is the only dissenting voice. The conversation will be left open for others to chime in - can take weeks, but there is no rush. Scr★pIron^IV 15:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I quoted the relevant point from the Manual of Style, and it roundly contradicts your opinion as it instructs that Sir and Dame are to be included. ZBukov (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Leave out the honorific titles, as they don't add anything to the entries. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I only pointed out you for your benifit that this list came from pages that mostly lack honorifics (such as this one and all the other linked lists like it on the list), but really those facts do not matter as much as the others issues pointed out to you.

Since people do not come to a page like this (a list of many names) to find out for sure if John Jones is a Sir John Jones... I think almost any work is too much... but in addition to (1) clicking on every name (thousands) and lookings to see if they go a sir (2) some people's name do not have any article to link to or tells us if they are a sir and (3) some are knighted now... but were not knighted at the time they were the governors of whereever... and sometimes we don't know which event happened when. There could be work-arounds and footnotes but these all make long lists even longer, are totally unneeded, and go against policy Wikipedia as we all understand it. By the way, I also see no quotes the from you of the Manual of Style.tahc ^chat 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What you claim to have pointed out for "my benefit", rather reveals a lack of familiarity with the topic on your part, I’m afraid. The one article your linked that lacks 'Sirs' and 'Dames' does so because none of the people on the list were awarded a knighthood! And there are 21 other UK, Australia or New Zealand-related articles or lists that don't include a single knight for the same reason. And on the other hand all of the below articles (which are all linked to the your page) include the ’Sir’ and ’Dame’ titles for the people to whom it was awarded…

Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey

President of the States of Alderney

Lieutenant Governor of Jersey

List of Bailiffs of Jersey

Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man

Governor of Montserrat

Governor of Gibraltar

Chief Minister of Gibraltar

Governor of Bermuda

List of Premiers of Bermuda

List of Governors of the Falkland Islands

Governor of Saint Helena

Queen's Representative

Premier of Niue

Administrator of Tokelau

List of administrative heads of Norfolk Island

So we can conclude that by far the vast majority of the linked articles does correctly list the knighthood titles, or the lack thereof (unlike the compilation article you created about them).

You claim that it’s not worth the work to include people’s correct titles, while what you did was actually deleting them when they were added. So it was you who put in extra work to delete existing information from the article.

As regards when people received knighthoods, there is an official, online database for it. So it's not true that we don't know.

If you see no quote from the Manual of Style, then please read again my message. (Hint: It was the highlighted part of the following sentence: "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference"). So much for the Wikipedia policy "as we all understand it"... ZBukov (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they can be "included in the initial reference" of that persons own biographies. This page is not a biography, nor even an article. It is a list. tahc ^chat 13:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was my argument in the very beginning, against your claim that the Manual of Style orders these titles to be excluded. However you maintained that what you had thought to be the contents of the Manual extend also to other types of articles, not only to biographies. So now that I've demonstrated that the Manual actually declares that these titles are to be included (not that they can be, as you misleadingly stated above), you discover the distinction which I initially tried to draw your attention to. Though other than this reference to biographical articles, there is nothing else in the Manual that would regulate the usage of 'Sir' and 'Dame'. So your claim that they must be excluded as per the Manual, is not true, and on the other hand there is a demonstrable consensus across the relevant articles that they are included. Or if you still think the Manual forbids this, then please quote the exact sentence which in your opinion deals with this topic. ZBukov (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• The titles 'Sir' or 'Dame' are generally considered part of someone's name; they would never be omitted in any list of office-holders prepared in the UK. They are not 'honorifics' in the usual sense. There have in the past been disputes when some editors have sought to remove 'Sir' and 'Dame' from Deaths in 2017 and predecessor pages, on the basis that they are not in the article name. It has been decided that they are part of the person's name and should be included. Incidentally this dispute does raise the question of what would be done if someone holding a Peerage title was appointed as a governor. If, hypothetically, the Duke of Norfolk were to be appointed, would it be argued that he should appear as "Edward Fitzalan-Howard"? Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not hypothetical... that is how it is (normally) done: Edward Fitzalan-Howard. I fail to see how "Sir" is different than other honorifics, Like Mr. John Smith, or Dr. Jim Jones. There are many cases were part of someone's name is not used. In any case, Wikipedia is not "prepared in the UK". It is international. tahc ^chat 19:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Being international means, to a reasonable degree, respecting the fact that different nations have different customs. Hence the list of Secretary-General of the United Nations gives the Sec-Gen from 1961-71 as U Thant, not Thant, nor Pantanaw U Thant. Note also such international lists as List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates where Knighthood and Peerage titles are used. Referring to a Peer (assuming it is one who uses their title) by their family name in a formal list would make the list useless as information. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that the Manual actually declares anything of the sort. You just changed to a different misunderstanding.

It says "Honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame"....

Maybe you should have just read the Manual of Style... or my comments on it.. in the very beginning. tahc ^chat 22:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

what are honorary knights?

Oh, so this is what you based your opinion on?! Okay, then let's clarify this misunderstanding. In your opinion, what is an "honorary knight"? Or you just presumed that every knighthood is honorary, therefore nobody is entitled to the 'Sir' and 'Dame' titles? :) ZBukov (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Honorary knights are people with occupations are in other areas; they are people who do not make a living taking up sword, lance, shild, etc. In fact, they would also need to be given the "Sir" title because of working as a knight. Even if honorary knights are entitled to the 'Sir' and 'Dame' titles, Wikipedia only needs to list them in that person's own biography, and perhaps in lists (if any) about their status as a knights, because they are honorifics. tahc ^chat 16:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

They are not. Your ignorance on this subject makes it difficult to 'D'iscuss the topic with you. An honorary Knight is someone like Bill Gates who is an honorary Knight of the Order of the British Empire. He is an honorary knight because he is not a British subject, and is not entitled to the title 'Sir'. If, as in the case of John Paul Getty Jr., the holder of an honorary British knighthood becomes a British citizen, the honorary knighthood is changed into a real one and they are then called 'Sir'. This distinction is important as some honorary knights, for example Bob Geldof, are frequently referred to as 'Sir' in common parlance. I really wish you would learn something about this subject before wading in. And no-one, repeat no-one, would ever refer to a Peer by their family name in a formal appointment. You make the encyclopaedia, and yourself, look ridiculous by even suggesting it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If this, over at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorifics where the phrase "honorary knight" occurs, is the current consensus, or becomes the new consensus, then the Manual of Style text there should be rewritten to provide more clarity for the many Wikipedia editors that are not Britsh subjects, and do not already have your understanding of "honorary knight". tahc ^chat 19:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The writers of the Manual must have presumed a basic familiarity with the topic. And the meaning of the technical term "honorary knighthood" is not a matter of someone's subjective understanding or some Wikipedia consensus, but it's a fact. See the Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom article for what it means:

"Citizens of countries which do not have the Queen as their head of state sometimes have honours conferred upon them, in which case the awards are "honorary". In the case of knighthoods, the holders are entitled to place initials behind their name but not style themselves "Sir" as they are not entitled to receive the accolade. Examples of foreigners with honorary knighthoods are Billy Graham, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Bono and Rudolph Giuliani."

Furthermore you can see honorary membership discussed under individual orders of knighthood, e.g. here, here and here. So British people who receive a knighthood are not honorary knights, and are entitled to put 'Sir' and 'Dame' in front of their names. So I hope this settles the matter. I presumed you would know what it means, before starting an edit war and a debate about the topic, and accusing me of not having read or having misunderstood the Manual... ZBukov (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is international, and my point is Wikipedia needs to be written so that non-British subjects understand policies in the same way as British subjects. To use a term like "honorary knights" without defining it is an invitation to read it in an ordinary way. For example, an honorary doctorate is a doctorate that does not make someone actual doctor. In fact, an honorary degree, and an being knighted (and other honorifics) seem to all be based the same factors: philanthropic efforts.

In other words... please go discuss it there, on the policy page. If this is really as obvious as you seem to think, then it should be no trouble for you. If you are not willing to help fix a possibly vague policy, then you come across as much less convincing. There can easily be more than one sort of "honorary" knighthood (the sir page still claims that it is an "honorific") but this page is not the best place to discuss it. tahc ^chat 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not a matter of citizenship; I'm not a British subject, and have no connection with any other Commonwealth country either. My point was that you just invented an entirely baseless definition for a technical term, and picked a fight based on that. I, for one, recognize that I’m not competent in the fields of agriculture or music for instance, consequently I wouldn’t start a debate (let alone an edit war) on those topics.

If you have an issue with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, than you take it up with them. The policy simply includes a technical term you weren’t familiar with, and consequently you misunderstood what it refers to (and instead of checking the meaning, you went misguidedly aggressive). In its current form the Manual prima facie does not prohibit what you thought it does, and the majority of the relevant articles are in line with this and consistently list people with their title. Or if you want to “invent” further sorts of honorary knighthood, then first take a reality check and then try discussing it at the Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom article (according to which the meaning of this term is entirely clear). By the way your analogy between honorary doctorates and honorary knighthoods actually appears relevant, because honorary knighthoods don’t make someone a knight, i.e. they don’t get the right to bear the title 'Sir' or 'Dame'. You should recognize the boundaries of your competence (which British titles and their usage apparently falls outside of) and finally stop sabotaging the current Wikipedia practice of using people’s proper name, which 'Sir' and 'Dame' is a part of (or in the case of peers, being referred to by their title). ZBukov (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You claim "honorary knights" is a technical term... a technical term with one meaning only... but you lose all credibility by asking others to fight for your POV. Why would I either need to nor be able to claim, at another page, that it has some new technical meaning and only that one meaning? I am all done talking with you.

Even if the MOS was changed to permit the "Sir" to be listed on pages like this-- it would not require the "Sir" to be listed on any pages like this. tahc ^chat 16:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You deleted the 'Sir' and 'Dame' titles from this article, claiming that the Wikipedia Manual of Style commands so. This turned out to have been a misunderstanding, because you didn't know what an "honorary knight" was. What does it take for you to admit a simple mistake? If you have any lingering doubts of what an honorary knight is, read again the simple and clear explanation in the "Honorary awards" section of the Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom article. ZBukov (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone who uses "Sir" does not hold an honorary knighthood. They hold a substantive knighthood. The title effectively becomes part of their name. If John Smith is knighted, he is never again simple John Smith (unless he prefers to be addressed that way) or Mr Smith (ever). He is Sir John Smith or Sir John. It is not in any way the same as the use of Mr or Dr, which are polite forms of address but not actually genuine titles. So yes, the title is used everywhere, including in lists. It seems that the initial contributor does not understand the British honours system and has not understood the MOS correctly. That's fine and correcting lack of knowledge is what Wikipedia is all about; but when it's explained to you by people who do understand it, accept the explanation and move on. Don't continue to argue from a point of ignorance. It just makes you look stupid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

how consensus works

Furthermore I have demonstrated above that the other Wikipedia articles dealing with the topic of colonial governors (the ones not written by yourself) do include the 'Sir' and 'Dame' titles, as they should. And as for the matter of consensus, in light of the above discussion you have no consensus for diverging from the current consensus on the topic. ZBukov (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As has been said before, that is not how consensus works. Maybe one of User:ScrapIronIV or User:GoodDay-- or any uninvloved administrator will explain it to you, again, if you ask them. tahc ^chat 19:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, @tahc, so you explain me how consensus works in your opinion. Because you apparently have neither consensus, nor even a majority supporting your view here (i.e. for diverging from the widespread practice of listing people with their proper title). Or do you regard the article as your own property where you write whatever and however you please...? ZBukov (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've just come to this, I'm an administrator (not that that matters as far as editing is concerned), and I'm with ZBukov. It is totally incorrect to omit the titles of "Sir" and "Dame". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of governors of dependent territories in the 21st century. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pacificmagazine.net/news/2008/07/25/new-king-of-wallis-crowned-today
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529051447/http://caymannetnews.com/2013/09/06/helen-kilpatrick-sworn-in-as-new-governor/ to http://caymannetnews.com/2013/09/06/helen-kilpatrick-sworn-in-as-new-governor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

3843

Abdul Moiz 39.48.46.3 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)